FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WOODFAB TIMBER LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-102300-IR-10/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The Company is a family run timber business located in Aughrim, Co Wicklow. The Claimant has been employed by the Company as a maintenance fitter for a period of almost forty years. In 2003 the Claimant became ill and as a result he was absent from employment for eight years. During this period of absenteeism, the Company held the Claimant's position open for his return and in the interim the Company were required to operate with the remaining three fitters employed by the Company. In order to facilitate the Claimant's return to work it was necessary for the Company to make one of the remaining fitters redundant. It is the Union's claim that the Claimant experienced an unnecessary delay in his return to work and is seeking compensation for the loss of earnings for the period of eight weeks between the redundancy being effected and his return to work. The Company rejects the Union's claim and agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th June 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that this claim should fail".
On the 22nd July 2011, the Union on behalf of its member appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company refused to allow the Claimant to return to work despite being passed fit by a Company appointed medical assessor.
2. The Company caused undue delay in facilitating the Claimant's return to work.
3. The Union contends that the Claimant should receive compensation for the loss of earnings incurred prior to his return to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company treated the Claimant in an equitable manner at all times and held his position open for the entire period of his absence due to illness.
2. The delay in the Claimant's return to work was unavoidable and was caused by the Company's requirement to carry out a redundancy.
DECISION:
The case comes before the Court pursuant to Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Court has carefully considered the written submissions of both parties and has taken into account the supplementary oral submissions made by both sides in the course of the hearing into the case held on 25th November, 2011.
Taking all factors into account, the Court finds that the Respondent company acted reasonably in the manner in which it made arrangements for the Appellant’s return to work following a prolonged period of illness that extended over many years.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th November 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.